Okay, I've read what I can find concerning my following questions, and if I missed something please forgive it because I've looked at all of the newbie stuff at the top and the Help Board and even skimmed the Plot board and Histories of Admin characters, so I really did try to answer these on my own.

1) If I'm reading the history of the covens correctly, they didn't form until the 1500's, correct? So if my character was turned in 1349, he would not have been able to join a coven, nor would his sire have belonged to a coven, so they'd basically be alone (save for maybe one or two others that the sire may already know) to figure out how the whole Vampire deal works, right? Like what they can and can't eat, etc. I just need to know how much I need to be thinking about how much she would have had to teach him by herself. Originally I had said that she took him back to her coven and they helped to teach him, but that was when I was writing during class and didn't have access to the boards so I hadn't read the BG on the covens yet. So now that I've read it, I need to rethink all of that, right?

2) In regards to that, would it be okay to say that they had a smaller, more primitive version of a coven already going on back then? Okay a bit of background. The sire is a gypsy from Italy who just happens to be living in England when she sires my character. Then, (as I had originally written) she takes him back to Italy, to her coven so that they can help her teach him to be a vampire. Now, if I can't say it was one of the five covens (cause they weren't around then), could I still have that sort of thing happen? Could it be... for an example, a band of vampire gypsies (not all gypsies who were turned into vampires, but more like vampires who had banded together and now traveled together to keep safe, safety in numbers and all)? Would that be plausible, since it has long been in human and animal nature to band together to teach the young of the species how to survive and to keep safe from enemies?

3) Because he was turned during the Bubonic Plague: If a vampire were to drink blood infected with a disease, how would that affect them? Would they be okay if it were something small like the cold or flu? Could it kill them or even make them sick if it were the plague? It just occurred to me that I don't know how they would have to deal with sick prey because I couldn't find anything that said how that would affect them. Could it, potentially, be just as bad for them as dead blood can be?

4) Was there ever a decision made about whether or not Vampires have reflections? I read the thread by Vixey, but you left it up to Marcus and I don't recall (though I could be wrong) ever reading a decision. Just wondering because as I was reading the thread I came to the same conclusion Skirr came to: if they didn't reflect light, they wouldn't be visible to the human eye, since all sight is, is the eye picking up light reflected off of the things around us. Just curious because rummaging through the topics for answers to my questions invariably led to more questions. *shakes head at self*



That's all I can think of. Admittedly I never got past page five of the Help Board because it was getting dull and repetitive, and I have to leave, but when I reach another comp I'll continue my escapades in the Help Board, so please don't be mad if I missed one of the answers cause it's past page five, I swear I'll get to it soon...

Thanks guys!

OH OH!! I know number three!!

I would guess that even though they wouldn't get sick or anything, the blood would probably taste bad :P But they still wouldn't be affected by any bacteria or viruses. So the blood might leave an Icky taste in their mouth for a while, but other than that *shrugs* Drink up 9.9

If you like that kinda taste anyway ;)

I can get on 4 or at least I think I can.

First off the argument you cited wasn't over if vampires have reflections or not, actually it was more on the nature of a vampire that doesn't have a reflection.

On Vital though, this little snafu is optional. Normally it's The Ishak that are without reflections, but the way the site works well we have lots of people with vampiric aspects that don’t fall completely into one Coven or rather folks that are multi-aspectual…long story short…it’s your choice if your character goes without a reflection.

:heh:

Just remember that clothes must have a reflection...

Also I think I can answer 2 as well. First I'd say that not every group of vampires has to be called a coven and groups of vampires outside of covens, well that seems perfectly reasonable. After all as you said, humans are social creatures and that doesn't change just because you become a blood sucking fiend. Well in fact that might make it a stronger instinct, after all misery does love company.

1+2) As long as you don't go wandering around saying, "We made the first coven!" blahdiblahblah, you're fine. Like Istar said, it would be silly to think that vampires went lonerish the second they were turned.

3) I talked to Kira/Marcus, and we both think that this whole thing came up before (but neither of us can remember exactly what was said). SO! We've decided that, like Vixey said, one - it would have a godawful taste. Two - there'd be little to no nutritional value to get from the blood - some, but not enough to sustain a vampire. Three - if large quantities of it were consumed, the vampire wouldn't get the plague, but he wouldn't feel so hot either. Might get cramps or something.

4) Again, like Istar said, it was more about the logistics of how it worked. Some vampires still don't have any reflections, and some do. Clothing is always reflected.